Pelican Parts Forums - Don't understand Net Neutrality? Details too boring for you? Watch this

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/)

- Off Topic Discussions (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/)

- - Don't understand Net Neutrality? Details too boring for you? Watch this (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/814539-dont-understand-net-neutrality-details-too-boring-you-watch.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayne at Pelican Parts (Post 8103223)

I wouldn't say "nothing". Firstly the whole argument over net neutrality is one of money ($$$). The networks want to make more $$$ or pay for infrastructure improvements by charging the people who actually use the network. In this case, they are going after Netflix, who will in turn just flip around and charge the end consumer more. So, in general, it's the same thing, just being billed differently.

I think any model where "unlimited use" is the norm is bad for business because it causes inefficiencies, and also doesn't necessarily reward infrastructure improvements. Why would the cable companies upgrade their networks if they are not going to get any additional revenue (ROI) from it? The answer is they won't. This might be one of the reasons why the US loses in the bandwidth global "race" because the consumers are not willing (or able) to pay for gigabit speeds.

If net neutrality passes, then I think the "last mile" providers will then move to the consumer to have them pay for their bandwidth usage. Is it fair that a Netflix user should pay the same rate as grandma next door who simply checks the weather online? Not really - people who use more should pay more - that model is best to maintain the infrastructure that supports *everyone*.

So, just to summarize, I think having a neutral playing field in content delivery is a good thing in principle. However, it should be coupled with a pay-as-you-go model where heavy users contribute to the costs of maintaining the network (or you just raise prices to distribute the costs across many end users).

Bottomline, net neutrality is a good thing - if the network providers need more funds to pay for the additional use of services like Netflix, then charge the eventual users of those services (the eyeballs watching the shows).

-Wayne

This is a different model from getting people to pay for preferential access and speed while others wait. That I think is what people are worried about.

Wayne,

Thanks for thoughtful response.

Net neutrality wouldn't prevent data caps or pay-per-usage models, so in that sense it's independent. You're right that it comes down to $$ (doesn't everything? :)) but for retail ISP's like Time Warner and Comcast the money issue is largely the trend towards alternative media services over their own. Comcast currently offers "bundled" cable and internet for less than the internet only plan; TWC did this years ago, not sure if they still do. The goal is to keep users accustomed to cable.

They don't upgrade their networks because in the absence of competition they don't have to -- my rates for the same service increase year over year. It also seems disingenuous that they should charge extra for a "faster" connection knowing their "pipe" to the data is often the limiting factor. The best solution may be competition -- data caps, unlimited, etc. can all be decided by the market.

I will say there's a societal as well as economic value to unlimited use, the analogy would be the interstate highway system -- there's a benefit to information, like people, flowing freely. But your point regarding consumption and infrastructure costs is valid.

I know this for certain: if we allow last-mile providers to discriminate, inevitably competing services will suffer and the market will be the worse for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanielDudley (Post 8105467)

This is a different model from getting people to pay for preferential access and speed while others wait. That I think is what people are worried about.

If you ask me, if the ISP customer wants preferential access... such as an unfettered pipe, they should be able to pay for that. That's how a two-tiered system should work.
You get basic internet service for..oh, $50/mo. Bandwidth-hog sites may work at a reduced capacity.
Want full, unrestricted bandwidth? $75 or $100/mo.

Leave it up to the consumer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WolfeMacleod (Post 8106040)

This only works in a model where there is more than one competitor. The major cable players are staying out of each-others' back yards as to prevent competition. Have you tried getting Time Warner in an area with Comcast? Or Charter in an area with Time Warner?

I remember reading about how all the bell company was broken up into all the "baby bells" because of their monopoly. ISPs dance around it because they have competition - across the country.

It would be nice if a new provider came in, laid some line and offered a competitive service. Problem is unless you're a BIG co with money to pay off the right people, get the tools, materials, and permits there won't be much until we get high-speed/low-latency wireless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brando (Post 8106158)

It would be nice if a new provider came in, laid some line and offered a competitive service. Problem is unless you're a BIG co with money to pay off the right people, get the tools, materials, and permits there won't be much until we get high-speed/low-latency wireless.

Enter Google Fiber...

Senators opposing net neutrality rake in more campaign cash | Ars Technica
"Senators who have vocalized their opposition to net neutrality are taking in, on average, 40 percent more campaign cash from the broadband-delivery industry than those who support it, according to an analysis of campaign data.

Further Reading
Bankrolled by broadband donors, lawmakers lobby FCC on net neutrality

Watchdog decries politicians' claims that they "are acting in the public interest."
The data (XLSX)—a Maplight analysis of campaign contributions prepared for Ars Technica—highlights the disparity between what the monied Washington interests want compared to the public's desires. Most of the 800,000 initial public comments to the Federal Communications Commission backed the FCC adopting net neutrality rules. The commission is weighing whether to enact regulations that, among other things, could prevent broadband providers from charging for Internet fast lanes. The public commenting period ended Monday.

What the commission will do is anybody's guess, but the political money so far is lining up against net neutrality. No vote date has been set.

Adding to the net neutrality intrigue is that it's unclear which, if any, political party will take control in January. Not a single Senate Republican has gone on public record in support of net neutrality."

Quote:

Originally Posted by porsche4life (Post 8099349)

Please mr big cable company. Explain it to us.

Kinda like sammy talking about big oil though. Your bias shows through. ;)

Not as much as your ignorance.

Not sure how germane this is, but I'll share it.
When I first started my property management business, I met with an HOA board member now and then. She'd call me frequently to cancel our meeting because she had to leave the state (KA). One day I asked her what she did for a living that required her to travel so much.
She said that she was going to DC to meet with politicians and other dignitudes as they were developing a system of information dispersion. I asked her what she meant by that. She said it was a new thing that would change the world for all of us. "It will be called The Information Super Highway. You'll hear about it one day."
.
And I don't recall if Gore's name was mentioned. :rolleyes: